Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-07-25
ress md Aakotalan
DAKOTA TOPICS.
Codification OF the Lsws-The Local
OptisD Law and h5unicipai License.

C0difscation of the Laws-The Local
OpJisD Law and A5untcIpai %I.iceDse.
q. A i IN the Dakota d. apartment st
Paul Pioneer Press Iiipre Is no chnie
for alarm, l imagine, over the ralAer e1-
traordinery powers conferred On tne
committee for codIfying the laws. The
legality of the grant 10 somewhat qaes-
tionable, though many lawyers think 1t
entirely valid. The code, however, need
not be adopted or enforced as the oil
cial acts of the territery to make the
work Of great .vaioe. There could
scarcely be q worse conglomeration of
laws than nov exist in Dakota. While
the foundation is good, in the main the
work has besn added to and substracted
from, amended, altered, eliminated, re-
built, expungeu, revived, enlarged, ella
borated, stricken out and made over.
until it is vague, contradictory, meaning
less in some places, and IN many places
absurd. While the commission will
scarcely attempt to abrogate any statute
they will SO compile the average exiss-
ing laws as to clearly show what pro-
amended. and this, OF itself, will prove
VI kAcns uuhiipyS CN0u sAouku uoe VI
Totally promulgated as the law.
Leyissee's code, though not an authority.
is probably more generally used in the
territory than the Official code. II the
prospective compilation is merely en-
ployed for convenierc e in determining
what the laws really are, and shalt await
Legislative sanction before becoming au-
thoritatiye, 1T will prove OF very great
value TO the territory,
see some OF the board of county
commissioners are holding that petition
for a vote in accordance with the law
providing for local option. must have
one-thlrd OF the actual persons who
voted at the last preceding election, and
not one-third of the nnmber made up
from present voters. The commissioners
are probably strRIning the point pretty
fine in this ruling, but as they are the
persons who decide, the advocates OF
prohibition Hhoaid make a note of it, or
they will find themselves in, the luroh,
The law, If interpreted by the courts,
will no doubt be held to mean that one-
third OF the voters, as evidenced by the
last election, must sign the petition, and
this one-thlrd must be made up of per.
sons shown either by the poll books, OF
by affirmative proof, to be legsl voters
ut the time OF signing the petition. That
they mnst be persona who actually voted
at the Last election is doubtful, but anti
the question ia rnled or by the courts.
this is the only safe way.
And this brings up the query, "what
will ks the result OF the adoption ol
prohibition in any given county under
the lawp" Section 6 requires the county
com commissioners to revoke all Licenses
granted in cast of such adoption, Bui
how will 1t be when licenses have beer
granted by the city councils under
special charters? The clause requiring
the county commissioners to revoke
licenses also requires them to refunG
the arnoant paid: bnt this manifestly
means the amount paid TO the county,
and not to the city. The county wouli
object to refunding money received by
the city. and there is no provision res
qniring cities to revoke or refund. The
Inference is that city licensel
may be held till the license
year expires. a law passed ai
the last session provides that intoxicat-
ing liquors shall not be sold in counties
where no license is granted by the board
of county commissioners, but a provision
is attached In, these words:
Provided, That nothing in this aci
shall In any manner interfere with O
i~nvalidate any license granted by an,
city council acting under the authority
of q special or act granting exclusiv,
authority IN the matter of grantlnt
licenses for the sale of Intoxicating
Zig uors.
Prohibition under the local option
law will amount to nothing unless it
friends study the whole situation ant
are prepared to enforce it. They may
be sure il there is a weak place in th,
law IL win be found and taken advantag,
iof,